In Re Miller
161 N.H. 630
N.H.2011Background
- Miller and Todd, non-married, have two daughters and a long history of custody litigation across New Hampshire and Michigan.
- Todd has primarily had residential custody in New Hampshire for years; Miller seeks more time and residential responsibility for reunification.
- Allegations of sexual abuse against Miller were raised by Todd and investigated by DCYF and police with findings unfounded, though the record shows contentious exchanges and multiple hearings.
- Dr. Peggie Ward conducted a comprehensive custody/abuse assessment, recommending therapeutic reunification and later highlighting Todd's influence on the children’s beliefs.
- The trial court pursued a plan for reunification, then shifted to considerations of granting Miller increased parenting time, and ultimately awarded Todd primary residence in New Hampshire.
- The master and trial court's rulings relied on concerns about abuse allegations and Todd’s influence, with substantial evidence of ongoing conflict and impediments to Miller’s relationship with the children.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Todd’s unfounded abuse allegations warranted a custody modification. | Miller argues Todd’s unfounded claims harmed his relationship with the children and justified change in custody. | Todd contends ongoing concerns about abuse justify Todd’s primary residency and restricted access. | Vacate and remand for consideration under RSA 461-A:6 factors. |
| Whether Miller was denied timely access to videotaped Laurel interviews. | Miller should have had timely viewing of interviews influencing custody. | Todd disputes the relevance or timing of access to those interviews. | Issue deemed moot. |
| Whether Supreme Court Rule 3 as applied to this case is constitutional regarding married vs. unmarried parents. | Rule 3 discriminates against unmarried parents in mandatory review. | Rule 3 structure is proper, but this case’s constitutional questions are moot. | Constitutionality deemed moot; any amendment to Rule 3 to be done via rulemaking. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Choy & Choy, 154 N.H. 707 (2007) (trial court custody discretion; RSA 461-A factors central to analysis)
- In the Matter of Rossino & Rossino, 153 N.H. 282 (2006) (necessity to consider impact of spouse's conduct on parental access)
- Beekman v. Beekman, 96 Ohio App. 3d 783 (1994) (unsubstantiated abuse allegations can poison the parent-child relationship)
- Renaud v. Renaud, 168 Vt. 306 (1998) (courts view parental alienation as harmful to child welfare)
- Watson v. Poole, 329 S.C. 232 (App. 1997) (repeated invasive inquiries into abuse are not in child's best interests)
- In re Marriage of Hartman, 252 Ill.App.3d 481 (1993) (unfounded allegations may justify shifting custody to protect the child)
- Young v. Young, 212 A.D.2d 114 (1995) (unfounded claims of abuse can support custody changes)
- In re Beekman v. Beekman, 138 P.3d 525 (Nev. 2006) (trial court must consider impact of unfounded accusations on child custody)
- Mack-Manley v. Manley, 138 P.3d 525 (Nev. 2006) (unsubstantiated child abuse allegations affect custody decisions)